Topic: Bitcoin 2.0? Any opinions? (Read 1398 times)

Interesting approach, indeed. 

Which option do you prefer?

Option 1: Look into my eyes and repeat after me: "I shall always trust the Bitcoin protocol". Now walk away, go and play, relax and take it easy.

Option 2: Check your options, educate yourself and make your informed choice on which form of Bitcoin you want to use.

Interesting video. I also checked out node-bitcoin-p2p and I like the idea of the node.js based server very much. Smart! Any additional source on the additional protection you offer regarding security? I'd like to understand the advantages a bit better.


The reason is second source and freedom of choice.

We do not know today, if there is some problem with the bitcoin implementation, with the chosen parameters, with the economic model, such as bounty reduction, fee structure, verification mechanism. We do know that Satoshi is/was/were (an) extremly smart guy(s) and had thought of numerous issues (just read his client code - absolutely brilliant!). We do know also that having to rely on one monolithic system is bad. Bitcoin is the first step (from a centralized moentary system to a decentralized monetary system). Still, Bitcoin is monolithic. One protocol. One set of parameters. One set of economic rules. Thus from this point of view, the next step is obvious. But, if taken to early, it could also kill the current system.

"To me freedom matters and openess dont have freedom" - half quota of Eben Moglen (i almost forget he's last name, glol). In the bitcoin economy the version of our clients no matters, what matters is the bitcoin's protocol, if the bitcoin's protocol change between version of the bitcoin's client maybe we can get a problem, otherwise, relax and take easy .

How? Remember: It is a P2P architecture.

No reason why different clients have to be incompatible. The client I'm developing, Webcoin, is a normal Bitcoin client, but it will protect your coins in case the normal Bitcoin client is found to have a vulnerability. BitcoinJ and Spesmilo are examples as well.

If there are entirely new currencies, they should have some significant change compared to Bitcoin. Otherwise why should anyone invest time in supporting/using them?

Bitcoin 2.0 ? WTF ?? We haven't got Bitcoin 1.0 running and accepted - so what is this rubbish. 

Well, have an open mind and read on. 

While I am writing up some pages on Bitcoin economy, I came across the following observation: If a major bug in the Bitcoin program shows up, eg. some fancy buffer overflow which allows remote coin theft, the course of Bitcoin is likely to crash.   

Of course, with Bitcoin this is not possible.  It has been coded very well. But still...it has been heared of many times, that even programs like Windows (watch out: irony) have bugs. Read on !

So, assume we had multiple implementations fo Bitcoin. Bitcoin 2.0 and Bitcoin 3.0. Of course, these would be built on different clients, maybe slightly different parameters regarding bounties, fees, hash algorithms and stuff. They would be convertible into each other on the click of a mouse (or even by automated action). In such an ecosystem there is the chance to switch currencies. If Bitcoin 1.0 runds into trouble,
no problem, you just switch to Bitcoin 2.0. And, of course, you would not have all your assets in just one of the Bitcoin variants, but you would distribute your money accordingly.

Now my idea ist the following: A multi-variant Bitcoin world is probably not a good idea right now, as Bitcoin 1.0 is struggling for acceptance, but in the medium and long run, having several Bitcoin variants would be of mutual benefit for all involved Bitcoin variants. I am not saying that Bitcoin 1.0 has problems...I am arguing that the mere possibility of switching from one variant to another variant increases trust in all variants.

Any ideas on this ?